[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: Unbroken Succession of the One True Church?  (Read 3002 times)

Christ_Alone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Gender: Female
  • Reformed & ever reforming... by His grace
    • Here We Stand
Unbroken Succession of the One True Church?
« on: August 05, 2004, 11:42:23 AM »
"Only ________ churches can make a legitimate claim to an unbroken succession back to the time of Christ and the apostles. Christ only built one kind of church and that church is described in detail in the New Testament. The only churches meeting the requirements of that description today are true _______ churches. ______ churches have existed in every age since their founding by Christ, though they have not always been known by that name. We do not deny that there are those in other so-called “churches” that have been born again by the grace of God. We do deny, however, that these man-made organizations are true churches of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The above statement was from a church’s home page. I read this (with the blanks) to my husband and asked him to guess which church it was referring to.

His first guess was Roman Catholic.

His second guess was Eastern Orthodox.

Both were wrong.

This statement comes directly from a Landmark Baptist page, found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050204080438/http://users.aol.com/libcfl/libc.htm

Is it just me, or is there something wrong, with this? Is it the attitude? Is it the implied arrogance? I know a few folks who attend a Baptist church with "landmark" affiliation, who do not seem to display this arrogance about being in the "one and only true church", so is this just a church by church basis, or do Landmark Baptists all believe this?

Another statement, elsewhere on the page says this: "The fact is true churches have come from true churches in an unbroken generation since their founding by the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 3:21). Furthermore, a careful study of Bible doctrine and of history will show that genuine Baptist churches are the only churches which can make a legitimate claim to be in such a direct descent."

http://web.archive.org/web/20040605065344/http://users.aol.com/libcfl/where.htm

This is the EXACT same thing Roman Catholics say, and Eastern Orthodox say. What I'm having a problem with is the implied infallibility of the Baptist church who holds to this teaching. Don't get me wrong, I am baptistic, and I do attend a Baptist church, but I strongly believe the TRUE church of Christ is the body of believers, made up of different members, and those members cannot all possibly be in 1 building, with one name on the sign.

Where the Bible says that He will gather His elect from the four winds, I always understood that to mean the four corners of the earth, north, south, east and west - all over the world. To me, THIS is His church.

Am I totally off, on this one? If yes, someone please tell me where, and show Scriptural support. I'm having a large issue with this idea that anyone, anywhere, can boldly proclaim "my church has 100% perfectly pure doctrine" which is what these statements imply to me. As we all know, churches are made up of human beings, and even human beings with the best of intentions, are NOT infallable, and prone to error, through pride, ignorance, or various other reasons.

I'd like to study this out, so any insights would be aprpeciated. (I've posted this same post at a few other sites, because I'd like as much feedback as possible, to go over as I study this out.)

In His love... CA

Mtn_Bob

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • I'm a Llama
Re: Unbroken Succession of the One True Church?
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2004, 08:53:45 PM »
I'm with you, Christ_Alone, any group made up of people isn't going to be 100% correct about anything. Let's look at their statements:
- "Only ________ churches can make a legitimate claim to an unbroken succession
 back to the time of Christ and the apostles." Even if this were true, what differance does it make?

- " Christ only built one kind of church and that church is described in detail in the New Testament." Christ >is< building one ekklesia. It is made up of all the elect, chosen and recorded in the Lamb's Book of Life, from the foundation of the cosmos. Although that is hardly what I would call a "detailed" description - I wonder what they think the description is?

- "We do not deny that there are those in other so-called “churches” that have been born again by the grace of God." Well, that's a comfort.  :) I don't see the how they can even use the word "churches", I assume they mean local, organized assemblies of the ekklesia.

- "We do deny, however, that these man-made organizations are true churches of our Lord Jesus Christ." I would agree if they would change it a little - We do deny, however, that any
 man-made organizations are the true ekklesia of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Well, that's my dos pesos
In Him,

gain guide

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Jude 3
Re: Unbroken Succession of the One True Church?
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2004, 11:56:48 PM »
Check out this Filipino forum who claims to be the "true church of Christ." ::)

Justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone according to the scriptures alone.

judykanova

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 918
  • Gender: Female
Re: Unbroken Succession of the One True Church?
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2004, 03:04:19 AM »
As the Bible says...

Pro 16:18-19
18  Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
19  Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.

Pe 5:5-6
5  Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud,
    and giveth grace to the humble.

6  Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:



Is it any wonder that so many churches have fallen from Grace, given they are being ruled by Satan who himself fell because of vanity and pride?

Isa 14:12-15
12  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15  Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.



I can't imagine a true believer staying in such a church for very long.  May we all walk humbly before the Lord.

judy
'For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.'   Ps 119:89

John

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Gender: Male
  • A man with God is always in the majority-John Knox
Re: Unbroken Succession of the One True Church?
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2004, 11:25:01 PM »
Quote
"The fact is true churches have come from true churches in an unbroken generation since their founding by the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 3:21). Furthermore, a careful study of Bible doctrine and of history will show that genuine Baptist churches are the only churches which can make a legitimate claim to be in such a direct descent."

 
This church, or at least its pastor, are teaching the disproven doctrine and old saw of Baptist Successionism, that is, there is an unbroken Baptist-doctrine holding church/churches extending back to the apostles, and these churches (surprise, surprise) by holding to Baptist doctrine are the ONLY true churches.

The attempt is made by successionism churches to link to some historical person or early church and then claim that these early churches followed their doctrines over against the false doctrines of Rome. Therefore, if Rome is false those who were persecuted by Rome must hold to truth -- in this case Baptist doctrine is the key true doctrine.

The Baptist Successionists link themselves to the Waldensesm, founded by Peter Waldo (as in, where's Waldo) in 1216. They claim Waldo held to basically Baptist teachings and was persecuted by Rome (Catholics) for it. If you are interested in this false doctrine, you can read more here: 

http://web.archive.org/web/20031222165856/http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num3.htm

That church also believes that the KJV is one of a handful of Inspired Versions (there are others apparently too) in English. The KJV-Onlyism, and Baptist Successionism, plus their incorrect view of Baptism (believer's only) are probably just the tip of the iceberg of error (odd behavior for Calvinist -- I'd expect this from Arminians). It appears that the pastor has gone overboard in his defense of the gospel against the errors of modern versions and false gospels like Catholism and Arminianism. While there has always been a church of Christ in every age, it wasn't necessarily Baptist and though the KJV is a good translation it was not penned by God in 1611.  Going to wild extremes hurts the cause of truth as much as anything else.

john
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]